47 142. With regard to the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies owing to the “Inappropriateness of the remedy of habeas corpus,” the Court observes that, in the proceeding before the Commission, the State presented a communication on February 25, 2000, in which it introduced the topic of failure to exhaust domestic remedies and merely provided information on “Criminal Proceeding No. 112.93, which is being processed in the Chalatenango court of first instance […] for […] the crime of deprivation of liberty of the minors, Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano.” The Court rejects this argument as being time-barred, because the State filed it in the proceeding before the Court and not at the stage of admissibility before the Commission. VII OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 143. Therefore, THE COURT, DECIDES: Unanimously, 1. To admit the first preliminary objection ratione temporis filed by the State, entitled “Lack of jurisdiction owing to the terms in which the State of El Salvador recognizes the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,” in accordance with paragraphs 73, 78 and 96 of this judgment, with regard to facts or acts that occurred prior to June 6, 1995, the date on which the State deposited the instrument recognizing the Court’s jurisdiction with the OAS General Secretariat. By six votes to one, 2. To admit the first preliminary objection ratione temporis filed by the State, entitled “Lack of jurisdiction owing to the terms in which the State of El Salvador recognizes the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,” in accordance with paragraphs 73, 79, 95 and 96 of this judgment, with regard to facts or acts that began prior to June 6, 1995, and which continued after that date on which the State accepted the jurisdiction of the Court. Dissenting Judge Cançado Trindade. By six votes to one, 3. To reject the first preliminary objection ratione temporis filed by the State, entitled “Lack of jurisdiction owing to the terms in which the State of El Salvador recognizes the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,” in accordance with paragraphs 84, 85, 93, 94 and 96 of this judgment, with regard to the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and to any other violation whose facts or commencement occurred after June 6, 1995, the date on which the State deposited the instrument recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court with the OAS General Secretariat. Dissenting Judge ad hoc Montiel Argüello.